Colorado and Washington have implemented systems to regulate and sell marijuana.[1] Other states are following suit.[2] But the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) lingers over businesses attempting to buy and sell marijuana in those states. One scholar has referred to the various provisions of that Act as the heads of a hydra:[3] solve one problem, and two more sprout up. This Note focuses on one problem that the Act causes in particular—it disrupts contract formation. This Note argues that the CSA may preempt any state law which authorizes conduct that the CSA prohibits. It argues that the Restatement’s approach to contracts against public policy suggests that courts should enforce marijuana-related contracts. Finally, it argues that relatively little federal action would be necessary to solve this problem; Congress would not have to repeal the CSA or remove marijuana from the list of scheduled substances.

Nations around the world are feeling the effects of climate change. The international community now accepts that climate change is spurred by human action, and the consequences of climate change will be severe.[1] One consequence is the emergence of Environmentally Displaced Persons. Environmentally Displaced Persons, defined by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, are those “who are displaced from or who feel obliged to leave their usual place of residence, because their lives, livelihoods and welfare have been placed at serious risk as a result of adverse environmental, ecological or climatic processes and events.”[2] There are fifty-one island nations around the world that identify themselves as Small Island Developing States (SIDS).[3] Many of these nations are also included in the United Nation’s grouping of Least Developed Countries,[4] and as such have contributed very little to the carbon emissions that cause climate change (less than 1% of global emissions).[5]

History has demonstrated the United States’ ability to rapidly assert control over vast areas of land in a sweeping manner. In 1803, Thomas Jefferson acquired the Louisiana Purchase, doubling the size of the country.[1] Over a century later, Congress passed the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, asserting control over 1.76 billion acres of submerged land.[2] And on September 10th, 2014, a subcommittee in the House of Representatives sat down to discuss what could be the beginning of a new era of American property acquisition.[3] The American Space Technology for Exploring Resource Opportunities in Deep Space Act (Asteroids Act) strives to:

After winning the NCAA Men’s Basketball National Championship in 2014, University of Connecticut’s star player Shabazz Napier made waves when he said, “Sometimes, there’s hungry nights where I am not able to eat, but I still gotta play up to my capabilities.”[1] While past media coverage focused on paying student athletes for their contributions to university revenues, Napier’s statement refocused the issue on the possibility that their basic needs are not being fully met. It’s crazy to think that during a time where coaches’ salaries are on the rise, multi-billion dollar television contracts are being signed, and many millions more are collected in ticket sales, student-athletes are struggling to feed themselves.

In August of 2014, a viral trend hit social networks: the “ice bucket challenge” raised awareness of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) by challenging people to either douse themselves in ice or donate money to ALS research, or both.[1] In Bay Village, Ohio, five high-school boys challenged a fifteen-year-old classmate with autism to participate in the ice bucket challenge.[2] On the evening of August 18, the autistic youth met his challengers to complete the challenge, but instead of a bucket of ice, the challengers poured a bucket of urine and tobacco spit on him.[3] The challengers recorded the incident on the boy’s phone and posted the video to Instagram.[4] The boy’s parents found the video on his phone and reported it to the police and the media.[5]

This Note analyzes the code of corporate social responsibility as an implied-in-fact contract with consumers who rely on the reputations of corporations when making their purchasing decisions. Consumers and customers of corporations may be the public or a subcontractor in a large supply chain as in a multi-national corporation like Maersk[1], which is the world’s largest shipping company. These codes are voluntary,[2] and as such, are not often given the weight they deserve by the corporations who create them; however, society as a whole is giving the codes greater credence.[3]

There are countless ways to design a chair. The designer of the chair on which you are currently sitting may have designed it for style, comfort, utility, or all of the above. The more consumers enjoy the design, the more likely the designer will want to protect his intellectual property through trade dress to combat knockoffs, preserve his exclusive right to distinguish his product, and prevent other companies from free-riding on his marketing expenditures. The more functional the chair’s design, however, the less likely it will acquire trade dress. Indeed, some legal scholars believe that there is no possibility of furniture articles acquiring trade dress because furniture is functional.[1]

New Jersey’s current energy regulations regarding solar photovoltaic (PV) use are not reaching their stated purpose. New Jersey’s Residential Development Solar Energy Systems Act set forth commendable goals for an ambitious approach toward solar energy use. The Herculean standards the State government has set would, ostensibly, make using solar energy sources on the residential level an attainable goal. However, the regulations, in effect, negate the purpose of encouraging the use of solar energy sources.[1]

In September 2014, President Obama expanded the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (PRIMNM) to include 490,000 square nautical miles in the south-central Pacific Ocean, making it the largest marine protected area (MPA) in the world.[1] While this is a positive step in terms of ocean conservation, this MPA will be part of a larger disjointed system of MPA management in the United States.[2] This Note examines some of the weaknesses of the PRIMNM and explores solutions for strengthening MPA management in the United States based on Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act, and California’s Marine Life Protection Act.[3]

The debate over gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered (hereinafter GLBT) rights is controversial in society and in the courts. GLBT advocates are poised to change the way courts in the United States and communities view equal protection under the law. Traditional equal protection analysis defines the classification of people burdened by the law, and then applies the appropriate level of scrutiny based on the classification. Justice Anthony Kenney authored all of the Supreme Court opinions addressing the classification of sexual orientation. Critics of Justice Kenney assert that he is vague and his opinions provide little guidance for attorneys and judges. In this note I will argue that Justice Kennedy’s opinions provide clear guidance to advocates for equality and, I will propose a new test for equal protection analysis to be applied to classifications based on sexual orientation.

Submissions The Vermont Law Review continually seeks articles, commentaries, essays, and book reviews on any subject concerning recent developments in state, federal, Native American, or international law.